Search for cases | CISG-online.org

CISG-online number

5233

Case name

Perkins Manufacturing Comp. v. Haul-All Equipment Ltd.

Jurisdiction

USA

Court

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Chamber

Eastern Division

Judge

Mary M. Rowland (District Judge)

Date of decision

07 May 2020

Case nr./docket nr.

19 cv 03769

Claimant 1

Respondent 1

Seller 1

Buyer 1

Category of goods

74: General industrial machinery and equipment, not elsewhere specified, and machine parts, not elsewhere specified

Goods as per contract

"Sideloaders" (a type of mechanical arm on waste-management trucks)

CISG applicable

yes, Art. 1(1)(a)

CISG applied

yes

(Domestic) law applied in addition

Illinois law

Relevant CISG provisions not cited

Art. 4 (non-preemption of tort claims by the CISG)

Non-provision-specific issues addressed

Relationship of CISG to tort liability under domestic law; Remedies under domestic law for reprehensible conduct (fraud etc.)

This decision cites the following other CISG-online cases 12

Reecon North America, LLC v. Du-Hope Int'l Group et al.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
USA, 20 June 2019 – 2:18-CV-00234-JFC, 2:18-CV-00631-JFC, CISG-online 4425

Weihai Textile Group v. Level 8 Apparel, LLC et al.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
USA, 28 March 2014 – 11 Civ. 4405(ALC)(FM), CISG-online 2923

VLM Food Trading Int'l, Inc. v. Illinois Trading Comp. et al.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
USA, 05 March 2013 – 12 C 8154, CISG-online 2397

Semi-Materials Co., Ltd. v. MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. et al.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
USA, 10 January 2011 – 4:06CV1426 FRB, CISG-online 2168

Electrocraft Arkansas, Inc. v. Super Electric Motors, Ltd
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
USA, 23 December 2009 – 4:09 CV 00318 SWW, CISG-online 2045

Caterpillar, Inc. et al. v. Usinor Industeel et al.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
USA, 30 March 2005 – 04 C 2474, CISG-online 1007

Ajax Tool Works, Inc. v. Can-Eng Manufacturing Ltd.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
USA, 29 January 2003 – 01 C 5938, CISG-online 772

Geneva Pharmaceuticals Technology Corp. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
USA, 21 August 2002 – 98 CIV 861 RWS, 99 CIV 3607 RWS, CISG-online 664

Usinor Industeel v. Leeco Steel Products, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
USA, 28 March 2002 – 02 C 0540, CISG-online 696

Asante Technologies, Inc. v. PMC-Sierra, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
USA, 30 July 2001 – C 01-20230 JW, CISG-online 616

Viva Vino Import Corp. v. Franese Vini S.r.l.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
USA, 29 August 2000 – CIV.A.99-6384, CISG-online 675

Delchi Carrier, SpA v. Rotorex Corp.
U.S. Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
USA, 06 December 1995 – 95-7182, 95-7186, CISG-online 140

This decision is cited by 1

Editorial remark
by Ulrich G. Schroeter

The present decision discusses to which extent claims brought under domestic tort law are preempted by the CISG. After a careful evaluation of the facts of the case, the District Court concludes that the buyer's counterclaims for fraud and misrepresentation under Illinois law are preempted by the CISG, while the buyer's counterclaim for tortious interference with a business relationship (under Illinois law) is not preempted.

Decision published in 1

CLOUT number

1909

Comment on this decision 1

Full text and abstract of decision 2